General Discussion

This came up in another thread and I didn't see a new thread come out of it, so here's this.

HomosexualityWe live in a beautiful, wonderful time for the planet where marriage equality and acceptance are more common than ever before. But that doesn't mean it's okay in the Tolkien universe. If we're sticking to canon, and I assume we are, homosexuality didn't exist. Technically, it's just never mentioned, so technically he never says there isn't homosexuality either, but I'd stay far away from it, personally. Not because of bigotry, but for the sake of the canon I hold so dear.

Gender rolesThink about 1940's Europe and America. Think about WWII propoganda. Think about the mindset of the world Tolkien was living in when he wrote these stories. Now think about gender roles in the books (and, for the sake of inclusion, the movies). Women and men held very different roles not so unlike the 40's culture Tolkien was a part of. Men were the soldiers. Men were the hunters. Men did the grunt work. Women did the cooking, the cleaning, the sewing, the child-rearing, etc. Both men and women did gender-neutral tasks like farming, leather-working, brewing, candle-making, etc. Then you've got women like Eowyn who stood out because they defied their roles. That doesn't mean Eowyn was the norm. What does that mean for us? I feel it can be a little less rigid than the homosexuality thing, just for the sake of play-ability. I'd say play what you want, but play it right. What I mean by that is this: if you're going to play a female soldier, RP out disdain from the vNPC population. If you're playing a male, RP out feeling annoyed that she's not doing a 'woman's work' if your PC wouldn't be used to that sort of thing. It doesn't mean you're actually a misogynist.

*ETA: I've been informed that while this is Tolkien canon, it's not SoI canon, wherein men and women are 100% equal. Which is fine, but I'm leaving it up anyway.

NamesNames are so so SO important in the Tolkienverse. Names have meaning and power. Especially for higher races like Dunedain and elves and such, though that's not terribly applicable for us just yet. It's also traditional that sons are named after fathers after grandfathers, etc. That's why you end up with so many Stewards of the same name in Gondor's history. Even daughters tend to follow a family name 'trend.' Think about Theoden, Eowyn, and Eomer.

All of Tolkien's languages were based around real languages. Since we're in the north, our language (and Westron) developed out of his fictional language called Adûnaic, the language of the Numenoreans. The languages we use IG (as humans, not Orcs, I'm a little rusty on my Orc lore) are rooted in Old English and Nordic/Germanic tongues, and would probably sound a little rough. If you want an example of something that would probably sound similar to what we speak in game, click this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K13GJkGvDw

More modern names like Chad, Michael, Zachary, etc. make me cringe a little. But that's your prerogative. It's not canon, but it's you're prerogative.

SexualityRemember, Tolkien was a devout Catholic, so that means casual and premarital sex was a pretty big no-no. That's echoed in the Middle Earth realm. Sex is viewed in much the same way it is in the Christian Bible: not until marriage, but after that? Have at it, you crazy kids.

Elves choose one partner for life. Sex itself was literally the marriage "ceremony." There is no divorce, only death (or heading west). Something similar could be said for humanity, though it's a little less rigid. Casual sex probably happened. Divorce probably happened. Those who engaged in those sorts of things, however, were likely on par with criminals, if they were found out. There's an essay about this I read that talks about it, and you can read all 13 pages here if you want (it's really interesting, but I realize it's a niche sort of thing and I'm a mega-nerd): http://www.ansereg.com/WarmBedsareGood.pdf

Or, if you aren't so inclined, here are a couple important quotes from it:

Via its one acceptable road, marriage, sexual fulfillment is part of Happily Ever After for Tolkien.

A final important aspect of sex and relationships in Middle-Earth is that Tolkien himself did not consider them in a modern context, but as part of his invented history. He deliberately did not place modern sexual dynamics or mores into Middle-Earth.

Tl;dr: sex is for marriage, and is between a man and a woman in the Tolkienverse. Divorce is not common, and modern sexual stipulations are not applicable to canon.

Language

See: swearing.See: slang.See: phrasing.

If you've read the books, think of the way they're written. If you've watched the movies, think of the way the characters speak. If you've seen anything to do with medieval Europe at all, think of the way those characters speak and you're on the right track. Modern swearing, slang, and phrases aren't really a thing in the Tolkienverse. Recall what your mother told you: think before you speak.

If anyone has anything to add or any corrections to make, please do. I'm tired and probably missed something, but this is what came to mind immediately. Here's what it comes down to for me: play whatever you want, however you want. If you're going to be a lesbian from Dale who swears like a sailor and can beat up a dude with her pinky, by all means, do it, if it's what you want. But don't pretend it's canon, and don't expect others who try to adhere to canon to treat your PC like it's totally normal.

Sources:-I've read The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, & The Trilogy, & have written multiple papers on this mess as well as had Tolkien-centric classes in college.

Last edited by Nyneve on Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“Then he called him Maeglin, which is Sharp Glance, for he perceived that the eyes of his son were more piercing than his own, and his thought could read the secrets of hearts beyond the mist of words.”

Nyneve wrote:Gender rolesThink about 1940's Europe and America. Think about WWII propoganda. Think about the mindset of the world Tolkien was living in when he wrote these stories. Now think about gender roles in the books (and, for the sake of inclusion, the movies). Women and men held very different roles not so unlike the 40's culture Tolkien was a part of. Men were the soldiers. Men were the hunters. Men did the grunt work. Women did the cooking, the cleaning, the sewing, the child-rearing, etc. Both men and women did gender-neutral tasks like farming, leather-working, brewing, candle-making, etc. Then you've got women like Eowyn who stood out because they defied their roles. That doesn't mean Eowyn was the norm. What does that mean for us? I feel it can be a little less rigid than the homosexuality thing, just for the sake of play-ability. I'd say play what you want, but play it right. What I mean by that is this: if you're going to play a female soldier, RP out disdain from the vNPC population. If you're playing a male, RP out feeling annoyed that she's not doing a 'woman's work' if your PC wouldn't be used to that sort of thing. It doesn't mean you're actually a misogynist.

While I agree that it's not quite Tolkien canon to have full gender equality, it always has been and always will be SOI canon for males and females to be 100% equal. So it was said in ancient times by Traithe, and so it shall be!

“Then he called him Maeglin, which is Sharp Glance, for he perceived that the eyes of his son were more piercing than his own, and his thought could read the secrets of hearts beyond the mist of words.”

I'm big on canon, but some exceptions have to be made at times for the sensibilities of modern people. However, one thing that I am wholeheartedly behind is the way people are talking. All the sexual innuendo, dirty talking, swearing, etc. As has been discussed elsewhere, the good races just don't do those things. Tolkien made a very clear line between good and evil and in world with magic and blatantly evil races Good and Evil are more of an entity than just behavior. Very few of us should be criminals or murderous or sadistic. Those are the hallmarks of the evil men such as the Dunlendings, Haradrim and Easterlings. If you want to be evil, you should go join the orcs and fight for Sauron. :p

I agree with all the sexual intention/action and everything. I think Tolkien himself would have something to say about homosexuality, but frankly, this is the 21st century. Times have changed a great deal and as people living in the 21st century I think we can allow some 21st century thinking into the game, like gender and sexual equality. I'd feel more comfortable playing a game that wasn't openly sexist anyway.

Just to add, a lot of the interjections people are using a little out of place.Hell doesn't exist in Tolkien's works, there is no real mention of anything like it either.I don't even know what to replace it with honestly!

Gods also don't exist... not like how people know them. The 'gods' are the Valar, and most people don't know about them let along mention them. The elves are the most aware of the Valar and even still they don't call out their names when they are upset, but save them for songs and blessings. If your character does know the Valar, I doubt they would be saying "Valar!" When something bad happened. Instead, maybe singing the praises of Elbereth as they marvel at the night sky.

Yeah, but sticking too close to canon makes the game unfun. I don't care what Tolkien said. Humans are not infallible, they can screw up, they can kill, they can murder.

The moral ground here is skewed, and if we followed canon to the very bare bones of the books? Things would be extremely boring. Every good race would be good, and nice, and happy and sunshine. People would be dancing, and singing and frolicking.

Every evil race would be murderous, deadly, and mean. They'd kill eachother over stupid things, and growl and hiss. And it just would be really frakking dumb.

So lets NOT focus solely on what's expected of being 'good' or 'evil'. Lets stick with realistic humanity, and free will.

Plus, orcs would just be mindless killing machines too, if that were the case.

I have two forces by my sideOne's the truth and one's a lieWhich one's which I cannot tellThis enigma is my hell

Onasaki wrote:Psssh. I don't think it would be that bad to include homosexuality in Middle Earth RP.

There's no catholic church, or major religious faction to burn you at the stake for it. This is Middle Earth, not the Middle Ages.

I'm about as liberal as you get socially, but I'm still going to (obviously) disagree, at least to a certain extent.

Onasaki wrote:I don't care what Tolkien said.

Well, we're just going to disagree on a fundamental level here, as this is a Tolkien-based game.

Let me just explain my perspective to y'all. I love Tolkien. I care about this a lot. I might not agree with everything for my own life in this day and age, but to act like it's no big deal feels like taking a dump on the canon I love so much.

And again, like I said, it's your prerogative. Do what you want, but don't call it canon if it's not canon. That's what I said at the end. If it gets too far from it, why even call it a Tolkien-based game?

And no, it isn't the middle ages. But the morality expressed by Tolkien in Middle-Earth is very similar in many ways. Nobody said anything about infallibility. In fact, I said the opposite. There's a difference in explaining what the average moral compass might be for humanity and expecting everyone to perfectly adhere to it.

Once more, though: play the way you want. I was just reviewing what TOLKIEN canon says. SoI canon is another thing entirely, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't overlap in places on a Venn diagram.

“Then he called him Maeglin, which is Sharp Glance, for he perceived that the eyes of his son were more piercing than his own, and his thought could read the secrets of hearts beyond the mist of words.”

We know there is no God/Gods in Middle Earth. We know there are Valar. But I very much doubt it our characters do. Every human society has some form of cultic system in place, so I wouldn't be surprised if some form of paganism is practiced in and around Laketown. Historically, deities were spread by difusion but also very regional. Example: Ulmo, Lord of Waters, probably only known like this by the elves/Dunedain, but probably spread to neighboring cultures and was adapted into their local pantheon.

I didn't bring back SOI to bring back fluffy mcfluffy Middle Earth Online back. I wanted to bring it back as an interactive experience where we could exist within his universe. This goes all the way to our core. *should make a mission statement*

I'm not going to be an OOC bigot. Those of you who know me would find it amusing to think that I could be. But, I will slowly be shifting us toward Tolkien's vision. We are new and young and in alpha, but expect this to be a hardcore Tolkien RPI, and nothing less.

Without IC adversity, there would be so many fewer tales of success and glory in Middle Earth. It is part and parcel to us and what we do, and should not be shirked. That /doesn't/ mean you can do whatever you want and go hurhur adversity I'm a bigot, because we are talking about the British 1940s, not the American 1950s.

We can talk about this more, but yah. We've rolled back a lot of the canonical compromises past admins have done. Consider us back to the book.

Onasaki wrote:Yeah, but sticking too close to canon makes the game unfun. I don't care what Tolkien said. Humans are not infallible, they can screw up, they can kill, they can murder.

The moral ground here is skewed, and if we followed canon to the very bare bones of the books? Things would be extremely boring. Every good race would be good, and nice, and happy and sunshine. People would be dancing, and singing and frolicking.

Every evil race would be murderous, deadly, and mean. They'd kill eachother over stupid things, and growl and hiss. And it just would be really frakking dumb.

So lets NOT focus solely on what's expected of being 'good' or 'evil'. Lets stick with realistic humanity, and free will.

Plus, orcs would just be mindless killing machines too, if that were the case.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. That's how the world was written, it was his imagination, you can't say he was wrong when he wrote it. There's a big gap between not being all happy and fluffy and being outright evil. There were people in Tolkien's Middle Earth who were criminals, it happened, but the majority of the non-evil races adhere to a moral code and admire nobility, compassion and other good traits. That doesn't mean that every single person is that way. There were plenty of people who succumbed to temptation or greed or fear and went over to The Enemy. On the flip side, just because a people are evil doesn't mean they go around murdering each other at the drop of a hat. Evil doesn't mean stupid or insane, it's just willing to do whatever you have to do to get what you want.

The 'gods' are the Valar, and most people don't know about them let along mention them

I don't think it's necessarily true that most people don't know about them. Detailed knowledge of them is probably beyond most, but I think their names would figure in folklore for those who are interested in tales and superstitions. They obviously aren't worshipped so I don't think they would play a central role in anyone's lives, but I expect some would know the names of one or two Valar associated with the local culture/geography. With Laketown's close vicinity to both elves and dwarves, this seems particularly likely.

Melkor/Morgoth is what I think you're thinking of, Onasaki! Morgul refers to the poisonous blades the Ringwraiths used!

“Then he called him Maeglin, which is Sharp Glance, for he perceived that the eyes of his son were more piercing than his own, and his thought could read the secrets of hearts beyond the mist of words.”

Icarus wrote:Without IC adversity, there would be so many fewer tales of success and glory in Middle Earth. It is part and parcel to us and what we do, and should not be shirked. That /doesn't/ mean you can do whatever you want and go hurhur adversity I'm a bigot, because we are talking about the British 1940s, not the American 1950s.

If this is the official line, I think it would be helpful to see this phrased in a way that specifically addresses how this impacts on the play of PCs. I think it would be fairly important for anyone considering a female PC to understand the degree of personal agency their character can expect to have in the in-game culture, and the same is particularly true for those who might be considering PCs who fall outside the cultural norms enforced by the setting (female warriors, LGBT characters etc.).

It sounds like these sorts of characters aren't being disallowed, but that the IC expectation should be there that the world is not a friendly one where they are concerned.

Beyond the above, I'll echo everyone on one specific point: Politeness. Courtesy. These are things. If not an absolute in the culture we're representing (you're always allowed to play an outlier), these are values that would be upheld.

Yes, it's a medieval culture, but even medieval cultures had standards for conduct. In fact, historically, those standards could be very, very important. Even the vikings that pop-culture has taught us to think of as the quintessential barbarians had very strong feelings about things like hospitality, and insults and oaths were very serious business indeed.

And I love to swear. I love it. IRL, I have the worst mouth. But I'm not about to use the lovely collection of vocabulary I enjoy on a day to day basis in-game. There are curses that work for the world and there are curses that don't.

See. When it comes to language, and swearing, I feel like people are forgetting the very simple idea here: It's not English.

And while, I know cursing, words like f*ck and sh*t, are probably not exactly canon. However, I've always been in the mindset that because we're technically not speaking English, that the idea of the curse words in that language, are probably not exact.

While someone might say "f*ck this", you could consider the idea, that maybe they're not actually saying 'f*ck' but a word in that specific language that's similar. We use the vocabulary we know, because it's easier then trying to come up with new curse words. Though, making up swears is and can be fun.

However, this really only matters to humans. Orcs make up words, and curse like sailors all the time, but that's part of their game-canon.

Last edited by Onasaki on Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have two forces by my sideOne's the truth and one's a lieWhich one's which I cannot tellThis enigma is my hell

Modern swearing, slang, and phrases aren't really a thing in the Tolkienverse.

This, a thousand times this. Yes, it makes it a little harder to play to speak in a way with which you are unfamiliar. But it makes it so much more immersive for those of us speaking with you, and we appreciate it. I can only speak for myself, but overhearing conversation in the Ironwood that sounds like a Reddit thread is awfully immersion-breaking.

Though, making up swears is and can be fun.

This is one of my favorite pastimes in games, and became a defining characteristic on my old SoI PC.

Onasaki wrote:Ahh. See, I only read half of the Hobbit. I read all of Fellowship too, but that was years ago.

I'm just borderline obsessed with the Tolkienverse. Some people like Star Trek or Star Wars, some like zombies, and some like Tolkien. I...sortof like them all, but Tolkien is my jam. My husband's & my wedding rings are replicas of the one Galadriel wore in the movies. We have a replica Aragorn's sword (Andúril, not his first one) and I wore an Evenstar necklace to my senior prom. We have almost an entire level of our bookshelf dedicated to Tolkien, including two atlases of Middle Earth and a Tolkien Companion book that explores races and languages, and the map from The Hobbit is mounted on our wall.

It's a problem.

Making up "swears" is the best. Some of my favorites include:

Fates. Fates, you scared me!By my fathers. If you drop the f-bomb in game, by my fathers, I'll beat you silly.Valar keep you/him/her. She's just got rocks where her head should be, Valar keep her. (I've always used this as a sort of 'bless your heart' stand-in. I have to, I'm Southern.)

“Then he called him Maeglin, which is Sharp Glance, for he perceived that the eyes of his son were more piercing than his own, and his thought could read the secrets of hearts beyond the mist of words.”

Canon only goes so far, and the rest you have to infer. You never saw much of the lower class population of humans in Tolkien's books, or listened to Easterlings speak to each other over a beer, or became involved in a complex romantic relationship of cheating on one's partner.

Does this mean that none of these things can exist? Of course not. Tolkien stuck to his sensibilities, but he gave us a very idealized fantasy world for the most part, besides such gems such as the story of Turin Turambar (read CHILDREN OF HURIN; it has incest!)

Society is complex. People are complex. The world is dark. There is room for genteel, polite characters that Tolkien would have approved of. But, like in the real world, those beacons of morality are nothing without the foil of the foul, the depraved, and the immoral.

My feeling with all things canon, as an extreme Tolkien lover and obsessive, is that he left plenty of holes in his (mostly) black and white world that we should fill in with a complimentary shade of grey.

Re: The Rest

I agree with the rest of what you said, despite my wild liberalness in real life. I don't think that homosexuality or females breaking realistic cultural molds is something that should be common in Middle Earth. Such characters being common doesn't make a lot of sense in many cases, for humans, given what we know of the culture.

That said, I would never stop someone from playing such a role, because roleplay is an outlet and everyone should have that right. I just agree that it doesn't quite fit.

I didn't bring back SOI to bring back fluffy mcfluffy Middle Earth Online back. I wanted to bring it back as an interactive experience where we could exist within his universe. This goes all the way to our core. *should make a mission statement*

I'm not going to be an OOC bigot. Those of you who know me would find it amusing to think that I could be. But, I will slowly be shifting us toward Tolkien's vision. We are new and young and in alpha, but expect this to be a hardcore Tolkien RPI, and nothing less.

Without IC adversity, there would be so many fewer tales of success and glory in Middle Earth. It is part and parcel to us and what we do, and should not be shirked. That /doesn't/ mean you can do whatever you want and go hurhur adversity I'm a bigot, because we are talking about the British 1940s, not the American 1950s.

We can talk about this more, but yah. We've rolled back a lot of the canonical compromises past admins have done. Consider us back to the book.

Something has to give. There needs to be some sort of change. Some of you probably don't even need to read this post to know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, read on.

Please bear in mind that I'm not picking on any one individual character in the following. I can't fairly judge a character (even were I somehow qualified to do so) without some pretty in-depth analysis.

Please don't roll out the "RP police" argument. Not this time. Please, just don't. There's simply an endemic issue, and it isn't one that can be handled on a case-by-case basis. If you come to the conclusion that I'm calling you out, then read the above again.

There is a troubling tendency for the female characters presently in-game to conform to some pretty unpleasant real life stereotypes. Not every PC does. Just a disturbingly high proportion. It may be no more than skin-deep, sure, but it's still an observable trend. And let's skip right over the counter-argument that male PCs also often conform to stereotypes, because those stereotypes don't usually carry with them all the negative connotations.

Is that sufficiently clear? If not, here it is in a blunter form: there is a troubling tendency for the female characters presently in-game to be set up as if they require the protection and nigh-constant attention of their male peers, or to be hyper-sexualised, which they then flaunt and use to their advantage, or to act younger than they are, thus garnering sympathy from many (whether intentionally or not, and regardless of it not really fitting the setting).

Once again, this is not an issue with any single PC. It wouldn't be an issue if it was just the case with a few. But it isn't. It's a trend running throughout the player-base, to the point that 'strong' female characters are an exception, rather than a rule, while 'strong' male characters abound.

It bothers me. It was remarked in the chat that a few players could step up to set a precedent. Yes, I could. Again. Except there were plenty of strong female PCs in Atonement, and the current 'issue' was a quiet and far more tolerable undercurrent, and it strikes me that the precedent should already be set.

I guess something constructive would help. Here are a few hopefully helpful bullet points:

- When making a female character, stop and consider if the same concept would work with a male character. If not, why not? If the answer to that is because of the overflow of real life stereotypes and views into the game, which render the female variety feasible, while the male variety might be ignored, at best, then stop, step back, and reconsider. Are you willing to try out the male version, regardless? If so, do so. If not, please don't add to the current issue. You'll make me sad.

- When making a male character, stop and consider if the same concept would work with a female character. If not, you're probably wrong. To be fair, I do understand the reluctance of a male player to play a female character, but if you're game for it, do try.

- When making a female character, stop and consider your reasons for playing said character. Is she genuinely interesting? What makes her interesting? As a sort of litmus test: is this a character you could comfortably chat to another player about playing (say, 30 days after death/retirement, on the chat-room thing)?

Again, it would be very, very easy for this post to be taken entirely the wrong way. Please don't. It's the best that I can do to address the matter, right now, and I've done my damnedest to be civil about it.

That was on a game where both genders were explicitly said to be equal. I was later asked if I would, in hindsight, have made James Morrow a woman instead. Yes, I would have, for what difference it would have made.

I think the most important part is language. It is the very medium by which this game exists and people should strive to use language evocative of the setting.

One word I would like to see stripped from the game is 'Feck.' It was feck this and feck that back in old SOI. It was like Battlestar Galactica: Tolkien Edition.

There are plenty of ways to swear, this is by far the biggest issue that should not be an issue. If you feel you can not convey extreme emotion without an f-bomb this game may not be for you. We are playing in one of the most detailed, oldest and explored settings in fiction. We expand on and extrapolate based on what we know, we try not to twist, rewrite and change.

This is Tolkiens world we play in. Nyn voiced my own opinions perfectly.